Purdy: Clarifying the A's stadium situation

SAN JOSE -- Today's discussion topic: Which will happen first? Finding the missing Malaysian airplane? Or finding the A's a new ballpark plan that's serious and has a chance of working?

Except, as we all know, that is no discussion topic. It is an invitation to a pie fight -- one involving backers of two Oakland stadium proposals, San Jose politicians, Alameda County politicians, San Jose's lawyers who are suing Major League Baseball, a few churro and popcorn vendors, plus A's fans who are convinced that team owner Lew Wolff is the devil's spawn.

Pie fights are entertaining. And nothing about the A's mess is simple. But for a few paragraphs, let me try and bring a small piece of clarity to things.

The Oakland Athletics against the Boston Red Sox in the fifth inning at the Oakland Coliseum in Oakland, Calif. on Monday, July 19, 2010. (Nhat V. Meyer/Mercury News)
(
Nhat V. Meyer
)

Can we all agree on this much? Whatever happens, the A's are not going to get a new ballpark, anywhere, for years and years. So everybody should concentrate on something more immediate and practical.

For example, will Oakland please allow the A's to build a new scoreboard at the Coliseum? You know, so that customers who attend games there can feel as if they are watching a game in 2014 instead of 1986?

Right now, that's what the A's want. But right now, Oakland is not eager to make it happen. This is why, a few weeks ago, Wolff made public his seemingly fanciful notion of building a "temporary stadium" for the team somewhere in Northern California after its Coliseum lease expires following the 2015 season.

Advertisement

Sure, the idea sounds flying-unicorn nuts. But when reports surfaced of the concept, there was not much mention of the back story behind it -- the scoreboard issue.

Wolff and the team recognize that the Coliseum scoreboard stinks. They want to spend millions on a new scoreboard system, which involves the hardware and electronics to run it. But they don't want to spend that money unless the cost can be amortized over the next five to 10 seasons.

And there's the rub: Right now, the A's lease merely runs through the 2015 season. Wolff wants to negotiate a longer extension. So far, Oakland and Alameda County's negotiators have stonewalled that request. The supposition is that Oakland doesn't want to be trapped in a potentially sticky situation.

That stickiness -- surprise! -- involves the Raiders. If Oakland agrees to a longer A's lease at the Coliseum, that could be counterproductive to the NFL team's mission. The Raiders also want a new stadium. Owner Mark Davis has said his preference is to tear down the current Coliseum structure, then build a replacement on the same site, presumably as part of the proposed Coliseum City development project. Davis wants to reach an understanding on this by year's end.

The catch: If Oakland agrees to do what the Raiders want and the Coliseum comes down, then the A's would obviously have no place to play. On the flip side, if Oakland agrees to an extended lease with the A's, that would clearly make it impossible to satisfy the football franchise's desires.

Oakland's apparent dream is for the A's to jump on board plans for a ballpark proposal in downtown Oakland near Jack London Square. Good luck with that. Wolff said again Tuesday that he and A's co-owner John Fisher have (A) zero desire to pursue a Howard Terminal project and (B) no plans to sell the team to anyone who might build a ballpark at Howard Terminal.

"We are not going to Howard Terminal," Wolff reiterated Tuesday. "It's not going to happen. It would be easier to build a ballpark on Treasure Island."

You can call that hyperbole if you want. But I would challenge anyone to actually visit the Howard Terminal site, look around and ask serious questions about whether it's such a wonderful location, considering the remoteness from BART and possible toxic cleanup issues.

Howard Terminal's neighbors seem to be asking other serious questions. Last month, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan was sent a letter by representatives of Schnitzer Steel, Union Pacific and the California Trucking Association. All have nearby property interests. The letter expressed concerns about the project and asked that those reservations "be addressed thoroughly and realistically before any further promotion of the Howard Terminal location occurs."

In other words, even in the best-case scenario, scratch Howard Terminal as an easy solution. The Coliseum site remains Oakland's best hope for keeping the A's. But the city doesn't seem eager to negotiate anything beyond 2015. And so Wolff is continuing his study of a "temporary stadium" solution. He said Tuesday that the stadium could be built anywhere within the team's television footprint -- including Fremont, Sacramento, Livermore. Maybe even in San Jose. Wolff could make the case that a temporary ballpark would not violate the Giants' territorial rights.

It doesn't sound that complicated, does it? Oakland could negotiate an extended lease with the baseball team, then use those five to 10 years as a window for developing a more permanent A's plan. That might make a Raiders stadium plan more difficult to implement. But perhaps Davis can be persuaded to become more flexible in his options.

Plus, if all that happens, the A's fans might be able to watch video replays in high definition instead of fuzzyvision. Imagine that.